>Or is there a rational for the current, asymmetrical design?
>
>
Practical considerations trumping theoretical ones, I would think.
When one imports a library it is easiest to simply have all of its
exported symbols available.
When one defines an export set for a library, it is overwhemlingly the
case that there will be many private implementation-specific symbols
that are not intended for export.
Import/export are assymetrical because they do different things. In
particular, exports are part of the "work" of a library, they are a form
of declaration, and so should be clear.
On the other hand, providing an (export-all) for convenience might be
useful, as long as the default is to be specific about what the export
set is.
--
Cheers,
Ray Blaak
blaak@xxxxxxxxxxxx